I know it is always risky for the newbie to venture into the abortion debate but here I go. I am pro-choice. Hell, I don't even mind being called pro-abortion. I will try and explain why. I care about the lives of all of you on this board. Why? It isn't because you have arms and legs and a head. It isn't because you react to stimuli. It isn't because you have human DNA. It isn't even because you have a beating heart. I care about your lives because you have minds. The mind is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You are your mind. I don't believe a dead human should have rights because it doesn't have a mind. I have no problems pulling the plug on a human in a persistent vegetative state because it lacks a mind. Without a mind, it is just biomass. Legal semantics aside, it is your mind that makes you a person. A zygote or an early stage fetus does not have a mind. We can anthropomorphize it all we want but it doesn't change that simple fact. I see no reason whatsoever to give rights to something lacking a mind. I tend to be against third trimester abortions because there is evidence that by that time the brain has developed sufficiently that a mind, albeit a simple one, has emerged. For example it appears that some third trimester fetuses can dream, which would be evidence of a mind. So I am against third trimester abortions except in the cases where the woman's life is at risk, and in those cases it is a matter of triage. Anyway, that is just this one guy's opinion.
mind /maɪnd/ Show Spelled [mahynd] Show IPA noun 1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: [...] Assuming this is the definition you have in mind, because it is open ended it is unreasonable to assert that a mind must perform all these actions. This being the case, where is your evidence that an "early stage fetus" does not do one of those underlined? This is not demonstrably true. In fact it cannot be asserted with any confidence that the brain is much more than an interface between the non-material soul and the material environment. Again, not demonstrably true. If embryos can dream and we have no way of detecting it, are you OK with killing them anyway?
Would you say that the retarded and other people of low intelligence have fewer rights than the more intelligent? Because if you're going to base human rights on intelligence, then that's what will happen.
My opinion is pretty much the same. How do you even demonstrably prove it, except by lack of evidence for a mind (which there is)? Proving a negative is hardly even possible. Strictly speaking you may be right, but as an argument it is very weak one.
Anyway, if we can't know whether a fetus at any given state has a mind, wouldn't the safest thing be not to abort at any stage?
Similarly, it may be impossible for a man to prove he didn't murder somebody, but under US law that's the prosecutor's problem, not the defendant's, even if he's guilty as hell. Why, then, when the unborn child is as guiltless as anyone can possibly be, is the burden of proof anywhere but on the shoulders of the advocates of prenatal murder?
This is getting ridiculous. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you want to claim that an early embryo has a mind, you may as well claim that a stone has a mind. The evidence is the same, none. Think about that for a while, and why nobody is going to be persuaded by this absurd line of thought.
Well, if you shot through a wall into the neighboring apartment, not knowing if any human beings were in the apartment, and your bullet struck and killed a human being, then you'd be up on charges of homicide. But you're willing to do the same in the womb, recklessly killing a living creature, not knowing whether or not its a human being. That makes you just as guilty as the man who shoots his gun through a wall.
This is not a question of legal guilt. Anyway, you actually shot yourself in the foot with this argument, lol. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, thus it is up to those saying abortion is murder (a crime) to prove that it is so.
Which hardly makes the question unanswerable, so do everybody a big favor and spare us the weaselly evasion. The morally challenged can certainly be expected to think so. No, you're the ones who want to execute somebody, so it's on you to prove unborn children are no more human than blacks were to the Taney court.
In order for the mind to do any of those things in the definition, not just the ones you pick, it has to be functioning, and we know scientifically that the human brain does not start to fully function until the latter part of the 3rd trimester. You also have to take into account that to "feel" is not just a physical reaction, it is also a psychological one .. take the ability to feel pain as an example .. if you place your finger into a burning flame your nerves will react and send messages to your brain, this is your natural, inbuilt defence mechanism on which the brain will react to stop damage .. the brain will also form memories of this for future reference so you don't put your finger in a flame again .. this memory is "pain" without it you will have no concept of what pain is or what it "feels" like .. now a fetus, until at least the 3rd trimester simple does not have the necessary connections from the brain stem to the brain itself .. the brain stem will initiate the natural withdraw function if tissue damage is occurring, but the fetus will have no concept of "feeling pain", nor any memory of it. For example if I was to ask to to describe how it "feels" to be strangled, unless you have been strangled at some time in your life you will never be able to tell me how it "feels". to will something, you must have the ability to make conscious decisions, yet again scientific evidence tells us that the fetal brain is not developed enough to make decisions and therefore has no will (this is also true of newborns), anything and everything the fetus does is purely down to reflexes. Perception or the ability to perceive is easily dismissed in terms of the fetus, as even a newborn has little or no perception, perception is a learning process where you come to realize or understand something. In order for this to be relevant, you firstly have to establish that the "non-material soul" exists, which you cannot do scientifically. When there is no EEG activity within the brain, there is no mind from a scientific point of view. without the necessary development of the brain there is no reason to believe that a fetus can dream, even while we dream our brain (mind) is producing electrical activity, which can be measured .. if there is no scientifically measurable activity there are no dreams
Of course not. If you have a mind you should have rights. If not, then not. Who says you have to use a sliding scale based on one's IQ?
I've have some experience with this in my life (wife was in a coma following 45 minutes of CPR)... so I'm curious. Would you pull the plug on someone in the physical and mental state that my wife was in - even if she was (maybe) only going to be in a vegetative state for just a few more weeks or months and then get progressively better after that?
Was your wife declared brain dead, did she meet all the following conditions; brain death - n. - Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time. If not then the answer is no.
The question was not "would you pull the plug if she was already declared dead." The question is about the patient's prognosis. Would you "pull the plug" on someone who is in a coma and is likely to have permanent and irreversible brain damage even if they survive?" What I really want to know is how much their prognosis affects your decision?
If there is a chance that the consciousness of a patient can be brought back, even partially, then I would not pull the plug. The mind of such patient is damaged and "paused" in a sense, but it is still there, encoded in the neural network that is not yet destroyed. Sometimes the line between vegetative state and genuine brain death (of higher brain) is blurry, tough. Note that there is no such chance with a foetus. It has no mind yet. And preventing a new mind (a new person) from arising in the future is not immoral at all. Otherwise even contraception would be immoral..
You raised the point using a personal experience, I just wanted to gather the correct information on it. Not at all, the question has already been answered, your wife still had her mind, locked away somewhere ,, but still there. Probably not, though having never been in the situation I cannot answer either way with 100% clarity. I sometimes feel that the reason we keep people alive is not so much for them but for ourselves, for the loss we would have. Brain dead .. no mind, anything else would depend upon the situation, one I have not had to face, if or even when I do then I would consider many things before making a decision. Stopping a mind from forming to me is not immoral, what has never been is never missed.
By 11 to 12 weeks all body systems are present and working. All the fetus needs to become a healthy newborn is time and nourishment. Nothing new develops after 12 weeks!
Oh, well, in that case.....we should just be able to take that fetus out of the womb, and provide time and nourishment. Why don't we do that?
Nourishment of the type that comes through the umbilical cord. You probably could take the baby out before then, if the umbilical cord and placenta was still attached. That would be kind of awkward though, with an umbilical cord coming out of your vagina hooked up to your premature baby. I think you would also have to keep the premature baby's fragile skin moist, like they do with dolphins being transported long distances out of water.
So, IOW, it can't be done. Which means that this statement of yours... is total hogwash. The digestive system is not working. The circulatory system is not working. EVERYTHING that the fetus needs to continue life must be provided by the woman's body.
It may be working, perhaps just perhaps not to the degree to be able to sustain life. Same with the underdeveloped lungs. They may be able to breathe, but just not be able to supply enough oxygen for survival. You're obviously ignorant about this. The fetus's heart pumps it's own blood from the beginning. The mother's blood never flows into the fetus at any point. Nutrients and oxygen diffuse through the placenta. Before 21 weeks, and with current medical technology, yes.
